On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:59 PM, ais523 <[email protected]> wrote: >> [When the rule was changed from being written in negatives to being >> written in positives, the change in part (d) seems not to have taken De >> Morgan's Law into account.] > > Actually, it's not a typo. Part (d) was changed alone by Proposal > 6932 (scshunt), which in context (it was submitted as a Judge's > Proposal for CFJ 2910) was clearly intended to weaken the reasonable > belief defense. >
Indeed; as it was, all the accused needed to be able to do was present an argument that what they were doing was legal, and (d) would exonerate them by virtue of them having an argument. -scshunt
